Nature of Empire vs. Federation technology

[Mr. Oragahn]

Therefore: assuming that a Star-destroyer can produce E+25J of energy-- somewhat in accord with Han Solo's statement that it would take 1000 ships with more firepower that he'd ever seen, to destroy Alderaan-- then they could just fire away at the Enterprise with all 10 trillion terrawats each, and it would all just richochet off into space; and if any did get through, then the ship's force-fields could handle it. And anything that got through beyond that, wouldn't even warm the hull enough to peel the paint.

I think people here would agree that those figures are absurd.

The canon doesn't. Han made an implied statement that 1000 ships with more than standard firepower could destroy the planet-- which required about E+29J; so from this, 1000 standard star-destroyers might only have a combined firepower of "only" E+28J -- and therefore it's entirely conceivable that a single star-destroyer could generate E+25J; that's ten times standard firepower..

No, it is not conceivable. Mostly because the Eclipse superlaser would then be nothing new and better, and you wouldn't need a Death Star, and that firepower figure wouldn't match the several sources we have found which clearly cap their firepower.
You're merely taking a passing statement made in a hurry like if it were golden truth. He just threw a thousand to make the number appear huge, and he event said "with more firepower than..." which tells us that they'd need to have more firepower than they actually have, which means we can set the cursor on any figure we want. He was just hastily making up a figure, and it only takes a desperate drooling warsie to take this literally.
It is not serious.

And Trek shields won't ignore or effortlessly deflect fire from an ISD.

Sure they could; it's just EM energy and plasma, and those can be deflected aside with no net energy required, other than needed to bend the space.

Sure they couldn't, otherwise they wouldn't be at pain against radiations of stars. Not to point out that when bolts are disrupted, they tend to explode. When you'll try to move a bolt aside, you'll snap it.

But it's a moot point, since they wouldn't have to, given the Fed ships' speed and range, and ability to penetrate Imperial shields with gravity-based weaponry.

Gravity based weapons? Where does that come from?
And range is fine, but the Star Destroyers have tractor beams. What makes you think they'll give torpedoes a chance to hit their shields?
Speed is in favour of Trek ships, but turbolaser beams, at times, have shown to be very fast. In terms of range, in ROTS they could hit other 1~3 km long warships over hundreds of kilometers as well. Although that does not mean they'll have a chance to properly hit a fast moving ship which can fire all its weapons off axis if it stands at hundreds of kilometers, any closer distance means those 600+ meters long UFP warships will be hit. Considering the vast majority of battle ranges, even against large objects like Cubes, it's clear that I wouldn't count on the rare cases of superior ranges over thousands of kilometers.

[KirkSkyWalker]

You're merely taking a passing statement made in a hurry like if it were golden truth. He just threw a thousand to make the number appear huge, and he event said "with more firepower than..." which tells us that they'd need to have more firepower than they actually have, which means we can set the cursor on any figure we want. He was just hastily making up a figure, and it only takes a desperate drooling warsie to take this literally.
It is not serious.

You may be right, since they couldn't carry enough fuel to generate that much power by fusion anyway. But it does demonstrate how UFP ships can deflect a lot of power.

And Trek shields won't ignore or effortlessly deflect fire from an ISD.

Sure they could; it's just EM energy and plasma, and those can be deflected aside with no net energy required, other than needed to bend the space.

Sure they couldn't, otherwise they wouldn't be at pain against radiations of stars.[/quote]

As I've explained earlier, that's due to the random-phase radiation of stars-- which can't exist in beam-weapons since they require coherent phasing and frequencies; however when the Federation used multiphasic shielding, they didn't have that problem, and could pass right into the corona of stars without taking damage.

Not to point out that when bolts are disrupted, they tend to explode. When you'll try to move a bolt aside, you'll snap it.

Not when you the bend the space it's moving through; then it's moving straight for all practical purposes of coeherence.

But it's a moot point, since they wouldn't have to, given the Fed ships' speed and range, and ability to penetrate Imperial shields with gravity-based weaponry.

Gravity based weapons? Where does that come from?

All Starfleet tech is graviton-based, that's how space-bending works.

And range is fine, but the Star Destroyers have tractor beams.

Which don't work against shields or ships moving at warp... or out of range.

What makes you think they'll give torpedoes a chance to hit their shields?

I never said they would; Starfleet torpedoes would go right though the shields just fine. But why waste them or use unnecessary force; just beam their crews onto the holodeck, where you can have a Palpatine or Vader hologram interrogate them and find out everything. Then send them home.

Speed is in favour of Trek ships, but turbolaser beams, at times, have shown to be very fast.

It cannnot move FTL, whether it's a laser or plasma or whatever they use. They wouldn't even hit X-wing fighters.

In terms of range, in ROTS they could hit other 1~3 km long warships over hundreds of kilometers as well.

Wow-- multiply that range and accuracy by 10,000, and they'll be able to hit a Federation vessel which isn't moving and doesn't have any shields.

Although that does not mean they'll have a chance to properly hit a fast moving ship which can fire all its weapons off axis if it stands at hundreds of kilometers, any closer distance means those 600+ meters long UFP warships will be hit.

In the unlikely fluke-chance that a UFP ship was hit, the deflectors and force-fields would handle anything the GE ships could throw.

Considering the vast majority of battle ranges, even against large objects like Cubes, it's clear that I wouldn't count on the rare cases of superior ranges over thousands of kilometers.

Except that cubes could adapt,. and had to be attacked en masse at close range.
Not so with SD's.

[Mr. Oragahn]

You're merely taking a passing statement made in a hurry like if it were golden truth. He just threw a thousand to make the number appear huge, and he event said "with more firepower than..." which tells us that they'd need to have more firepower than they actually have, which means we can set the cursor on any figure we want. He was just hastily making up a figure, and it only takes a desperate drooling warsie to take this literally.
It is not serious.

You may be right, since they couldn't carry enough fuel to generate that much power by fusion anyway. But it does demonstrate how UFP ships can deflect a lot of power.

There is just about as much relation between Han's statement and an UFP's defense capacity as a tree in Malaysia and Sarah Palin.

Sure they couldn't, otherwise they wouldn't be at pain against radiations of stars.

As I've explained earlier, that's due to the random-phase radiation of stars-- which can't exist in beam-weapons since they require coherent phasing and frequencies; however when the Federation used multiphasic shielding, they didn't have that problem, and could pass right into the corona of stars without taking damage.

An interesting claim but I'd like more evidence.
Shields don't ignore the photons from torpedoes' explosions.
They don't ignore debris hitting them.
They certainly don't ignore the energy released from nearby ships which have exploded due to their warp core overloading.

Not to point out that when bolts are disrupted, they tend to explode. When you'll try to move a bolt aside, you'll snap it.

Not when you the bend the space it's moving through; then it's moving straight for all practical purposes of coeherence.

If space was bent as you described, we wouldn't even see the ships to begin with.

Gravity based weapons? Where does that come from?

All Starfleet tech is graviton-based, that's how space-bending works.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. I'd like to see evidence of that, and especially evidence that gravity has anything to play once the beam is fired.

And range is fine, but the Star Destroyers have tractor beams.

Which don't work against shields or ships moving at warp... or out of range.

Speaking of torps here.

What makes you think they'll give torpedoes a chance to hit their shields?

I never said they would; Starfleet torpedoes would go right though the shields just fine.

Absurd.

But why waste them or use unnecessary force; just beam their crews onto the holodeck, where you can have a Palpatine or Vader hologram interrogate them and find out everything. Then send them home.

And transporters can pass through the shields of SW ships?

Speed is in favour of Trek ships, but turbolaser beams, at times, have shown to be very fast.

It cannnot move FTL, whether it's a laser or plasma or whatever they use. They wouldn't even hit X-wing fighters.

Never talked of FTL. I don't see the relevance either.

In terms of range, in ROTS they could hit other 1~3 km long warships over hundreds of kilometers as well.

Wow-- multiply that range and accuracy by 10,000, and they'll be able to hit a Federation vessel which isn't moving and doesn't have any shields.

Yes, a great range for torps... which the SW ships would have no reason to not intercept ASAP.

Although that does not mean they'll have a chance to properly hit a fast moving ship which can fire all its weapons off axis if it stands at hundreds of kilometers, any closer distance means those 600+ meters long UFP warships will be hit.

In the unlikely fluke-chance that a UFP ship was hit, the deflectors and force-fields would handle anything the GE ships could throw.

At typical ranges it's not going to be fluke but a certain fact. That firepower may be enough or not is another question though.

Considering the vast majority of battle ranges, even against large objects like Cubes, it's clear that I wouldn't count on the rare cases of superior ranges over thousands of kilometers.

Except that cubes could adapt,. and had to be attacked en masse at close range.
Not so with SD's.

Adapt to what? The colour of the torpedoes?

[KirkSkyWalker]

There is just about as much relation between Han's statement and an UFP's defense capacity as a tree in Malaysia and Sarah Palin.


An interesting claim but I'd like more evidence.


Shields don't ignore the photons from torpedoes' explosions.
They don't ignore debris hitting them.
They certainly don't ignore the energy released from nearby ships which have exploded due to their warp core overloading.

If space was bent as you described, we wouldn't even see the ships to begin with.


Perhaps, or perhaps not. I'd like to see evidence of that, and especially evidence that gravity has anything to play once the beam is fired.

Speaking of torps here.

Absurd.

And transporters can pass through the shields of SW ships?

Never talked of FTL. I don't see the relevance either.

Yes, a great range for torps... which the SW ships would have no reason to not intercept ASAP.

At typical ranges it's not going to be fluke but a certain fact. That firepower may be enough or not is another question though.
Adapt to what? The colour of the torpedoes?

Res ipsa loquitur.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Res ipsa loquitur.

We're used to higher standards of argumentation than relying on short handed ad hominems.

[Who is like God arbour]

[...] In terms of range, in ROTS they could hit other 1~3 km long warships over hundreds of kilometers as well. [...]

I'd like to see proof for that.
I can't remember to have seen such thing on screen or have read such thing in the novelization.

[Mike DiCenso]

Likewise. The best range TESB, RoTJ, and TMP gives us for ship-to-ship combat is 60-100 kilometers, and some of the ship battles in the CGI TCW imply 200 km is possible.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Res ipsa loquitur.

We're used to higher standards of argumentation than relying on short handed ad hominems.

I'm not sure that was ment as an ad hominem, since Res ipsa loquitur. is latin for "the thing speaks for itself". These days it's usually used in legal terms for a situations where a closed group of people may be held in breach of a duty of care.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Res ipsa loquitur.

We're used to higher standards of argumentation than relying on short handed ad hominems.

I'm not sure that was ment as an ad hominem, since Res ipsa loquitur. is latin for "the thing speaks for itself". These days it's usually used in legal terms for a situations where a closed group of people may be held in breach of a duty of care.
-Mike

I'm not on page about the legal meaning as it's used in Britain or the USA, but the original sentence, used by someone who obviously disagrees with you, is rather clear, and is nothing more than a "metaphorm" ad hominem with a nice placeholder for anything from an insult to an accusation of following an agenda. The whole sniping isn't particularly appreciated either.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Actually it's an observation that when my every point of explanation is met with one or more uninformed responses, then persistence is futile.

[Praeothmin]

Actually it's an observation that when my every point of explanation is met with one or more uninformed responses, then persistence is futile.

Except your every point is unproven, unsupported by anything, and you never provide any evidence or proff of what you claim.
You are not in a position to call other's arguments "uninformed" when you can't even provide any evidence when politely asked.

For example, where is it stated that "all" ST technology is graviton based?
What makes you think is it?
Just because you arrived at that conclusion, doesn't make it the only possible one, or even the right one at that.
You need more then your claims as proof of anything.

I think you have a fresh view of ST, but your debating techniques are quite lacking.
When someone doubts your conclusion, snappy answers isn't the way to convince them, or even show your argument or position is sound.
Mr. Oragahn is not trying to provoke you, but he (as would we all) like to see more then just your "opinion" on these matters...

[KirkSkyWalker]

Actually it's an observation that when my every point of explanation is met with one or more uninformed responses, then persistence is futile.

Except your every point is unproven, unsupported by anything, and you never provide any evidence or proff of what you claim.

False:
"The Romulan plasma-weapon was not a simple blob of plasma—as clearly evidenced by the fact that it could exceed Warp 9, follow its target etc."
“The tactical deflectors are even more powerful, as evidenced in "The Outrageous Okuna" when Picard said "Lasers? Those won't even cut through our navigational deflectors!" via the word "even," indicating that their tactical deflectors were stronger.”
That's 2 instances of where I provided evidence right there; thus your entire statement is provien false.
I

think you have a fresh view of ST, but your debating techniques are quite lacking.

Like making blanket-absolute claims against others which aren't true? The pot calleth the kettle.

Mr. Oragahn is trying to provoke you,

Precisely: and I don’t respond to mindless provocations—particularly non-stop knee-jerk ones-- but only to well-reasoned and cogent arguments, which display a fundamental prerequisite knowledge and comprehension of the source-material. Meanwhile his arguments display a clear lack of such, such that it speaks for itself-- aka "res ipsa loquitur."

but he (as would we all) like to see more then just your "opinion" on these matters...

You can only speak for yourself, and only at the time in question—i.e. no necro-nitpicking for others.

For example, where is it stated that "all" ST technology is graviton based?

I explained that : "A Piece of the Action."

Actually it's an observation that when my every point of explanation is met with one or more uninformed responses, then persistence is futile.

Mr. Oragahn is trying to provoke you,

Precisely: and I don’t respond to mindless provocations—particularly non-stop knee-jerk ones-- but only to well-reasoned and cogent arguments, which display a fundamental prerequisite knowledge and comprehension of the source-material. Meanwhile his arguments display a clear lack of such, such that it speaks for itself-- aka "res ipsa loquitur."

but he (as would we all) like to see more then just your "opinion" on these matters...

You can only speak for yourself, and only at the time in question—i.e. no necro-nitpicking for others.

For example, where is it stated that "all" ST technology is graviton based?

I explained that : "A piece of the action."
But the original Star Trek's technology isn't spoon-fed via treknobabble, however, so there is some between-the-lines extrapolation necessary-- as well as research into it.
Some of it's subject to debate; however that's what we're here for-- but simple contradicton isn't debate, as illustrated below:
----------------------------------------------------

The Argument Sketch
From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
A= Arguer (John Cleese)

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Actually it's an observation that when my every point of explanation is met with one or more uninformed responses, then persistence is futile.

Okay, fine. That's three different interpretations of it now.
FIY, I'm still interested in seeing someone answer the points rather than just dismiss them as pointless.

Mr. Oragahn is trying to provoke you,

Precisely: and I don’t respond to mindless provocations—particularly non-stop knee-jerk ones-- but only to well-reasoned and cogent arguments, which display a fundamental prerequisite knowledge and comprehension of the source-material. Meanwhile his arguments display a clear lack of such, such that it speaks for itself-- aka "res ipsa loquitur."

In other words, you make stuff up.
Get off your high horses and defend your claims.

but he (as would we all) like to see more then just your "opinion" on these matters...

You can only speak for yourself, and only at the time in question—i.e. no necro-nitpicking for others.

Why are you making this so complicated?

For example, where is it stated that "all" ST technology is graviton based?

I explained that : "A piece of the action."
The original Star Trek's technology isn't spoon-fed via non-stop treknobabble, however so there is some between-the-lines extrapolation necessary, as well as research into it.
Some of it's subject to debate, however that's what we're here for-- but simple contradicton isn't debate.
----------------------------------------------------

The Argument Sketch
From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
A= Arguer (John Cleese)

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Are you trying to say something here, or are you just looking for trouble?
You seem to be very emotive when it comes to people who don't automatically ascribe veracity to your claims.

[Praeothmin]

Corrected, some of your claims have been explained.
But a lot of them haven't.

For example, while most of us agree that Federation tech has a lot of graviation components in them, many events deny your interpretation of how things would unfurl between the Empire and the Federation.
Their shields are not mere gravitation devices, because if they were, then many impacts that happened between physical objects and fully shielded ST ships would not have happened.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Corrected, some of your claims have been explained.
But a lot of them haven't.

For example, while most of us agree that Federation tech has a lot of graviation components in them, many events deny your interpretation of how things would unfurl between the Empire and the Federation.
Their shields are not mere gravitation devices, because if they were, then many impacts that happened between physical objects and fully shielded ST ships would not have happened.

You'll have to be more specific.

From here:

Federation starship shields (as an example) are graviton-based spatial distortions, as per Geordi's screen in Generations.

Projecting a graviton-based spatial distortion need not result in force rebound to the shield projector when an impact occurs. This is demonstrated in "Naked Now"[TNG], when Wesley's desktop tractor emitter was turned into a shield which easily repulsed the hefty assistant engineer . . . the emitter did not get knocked off the table when the guy hit the shield. Other graviton applications, such as tractor beams, do not result in such effects . . . note how Wesley was able to pick up a large chair with his desktop model effortlessly in the same episode.